Monday, November 19, 2018

Jordan Peterson is believed by many to be the greatest thinker that humanity has ever known. He is Father Figure, Philosopher-King, and Prophet to the millions of young men who are his most fervent fans. He is the central figure of the Intellectual Dark Web, an academic superstar, and an unparalleled media phenomenon who has shattered all conceptions of what it means to be modern celebrity in the Internet Age.

He has, by his own admission, thought thoughts that no one has ever thought before. He has dreamed dreams that no one has ever dared to dream before.

But Jordan Peterson is also a narcissist, a charlatan, and an intellectual con man who doesn't even bother to learn much about the subjects upon which he lectures. He is a defender of free speech who silences other speakers, a fearless free-thinker who runs away from debate, difficult questions, and controversial issues, a philosopher who rejects the conventional definition of truth, and a learned professor who has failed to read most of the great classics of the Western canon. He is, in short, a shameless and unrepentant fraud.

But is Jordan Peterson more than a mere fraud? Is he something more sinister, more unbalanced, and even more dangerous? In JORDANETICS: A Journey Into the Mind of Humanity's Greatest Thinker, political philosopher Vox Day delves deeply into the core philosophy that Jordan Peterson advocates in both his written works and his video lectures. In doing so, Day methodically builds a shocking case that will convince even the most skeptical Jordan Peterson supporter to reconsider both the man and his teachings.

There are no shortage of intellectual con men out there and I don’t consider myself to be the Truth Police. Having confirmed for myself that Jordan Peterson was little more than a Canadian version of Deepak Chopra or L. Ron Hubbard, I was perfectly ready to return to completely ignoring him, but I was unable to do so thanks to his fans. Instead accepting my critique, or even going over the various points in detail and attempting to rebut them, they attacked my intellect, my integrity, and my motivations. They accused me of jealousy, they accused me of envy, and they accused me of dishonesty, all in defense of a man who was observably lacking in any intellectual integrity at all! It was exceedingly bizarre, especially when I had done nothing more than point out a few of the obvious mistakes the man had made.

So, I decided to begin looking more deeply into this popular professor who was being so widely hailed as a formidable thinker, a thoughtful philosopher, a courageous defender of free speech, and a champion of young men. But almost immediately, I discovered that his reputation was at variance with his actions, as in the case of his deeply ironic decision to ban investigative journalist Faith Goldy from participating in an August 2017 event at Ryerson University called "The Stifling of Free Speech on University Campuses". The event was cancelled, and with Peterson’s approval, Goldy was barred from participating in the rescheduled event.

When he was subsequently asked about his decision in public, Peterson responded with what I eventually came to recognize was his characteristic bafflegarble, the word-smog he habitually utilizes to conceal his actual meaning.

QUESTION: I understand that Faith Goldy was removed from the original August panel because of her podcast with the controversial Daily Stormer after Charlottesville…. This strategy appears to parallel the SJWs, who wish to deny platforms to conservative speakers. I want to understand why Faithy Goldy was removed from the event simply for associating with identitarians, and if each of the panelists agree with that decision.

JORDAN PETERSON: That’s an excellent question. So, the first thing I should say is that it’s not like we’re unaware of the irony. Number one. Ryerson cancelled a panel about the cancellation of panels about free speech. That’s irony number one. And then irony number two was the panelists removed a speaker for arguably engaging in the act of free speech. Okay, we got that, believe me.

All right, so why did we come to this decision? I sat down personally—the other people can say what they have to say—I sat down with my son and we went through Faith’s interview. I know Faith, I don’t believe that she is a reprehensible person. I think that Charlottesville was very shocking to her and I think that she put herself in a very difficult position. And I think some of that was brave, that she went down there to cover it.

However, I listened very carefully to her podcast, the one that got her in trouble. And my sense was that she wasn’t, she didn’t, she was associating with people whose views she should have questioned. It was her journalistic, um, responsibility to question them. She had to ask at least one hard question. At least one. Three would have been better. You know, and I understand she had to toe a careful line. She was on the podcast, they had invited her on, it’s much more difficult than you might think when you’re facing people, even when you don’t believe them, to be rude enough to challenge them, right? That’s not so easy, especially if you’re an agreeable person and she is a rather agreeable person.

But I believe she, she failed in her journalistic responsibility. And as a consequence of that, she became too hot a property for us. And not just for us. And, well, that was, that was the reason for the decision. That was, that was my reasoning.

Now, this was manifestly not the correct behavior of a highly principled man or even a reasonably honest one. Jordan Peterson did something he clearly knew to be wrong, he did something he clearly knew to be hypocritical, but instead of simply owning up to his obvious failure when called on it in public, he attempted to concoct a ridiculous ex post facto excuse to justify it. Again.

He had to know that he was going to have to face the question sooner or later. He even appears to have prepared for it, and yet this response was the best that he could manage. If you watch the video, you can even see that Jordan Peterson has, he has, a reliable tell that warns the viewer when he’s about to say something that he knows is not true. He also betrays another tell that indicates when he is going to very carefully attempt to conceal the weakness of one of his assertions or conclusions.

Just watch for the repetitions and the adverbs. Once you learn to recognize them, you can identify when Jordan Peterson is trying to pull a fast one on his audience even when you don’t know what he’s talking about.

And the obvious question Peterson’s response raises is this: according to what theory of human rights or journalism does one’s own right to free speech rely upon one’s correct performance of nonexistent journalistic responsibilities?

There is no such theory. It’s a nonsensical assertion. It’s classic Petersonian bafflegarble. But it requires a high level of mental focus to penetrate the fog of Peterson’s word-salad and see what he is literally saying.

After twice seeing Peterson’s shameless dishonesty in action, I decided that it was time to delve deeper into the man’s actual work. Being a writer myself, I was aware that men express themselves differently in different media. Many eloquent speakers reveal themselves to be superficial thinkers in writing, and no few writers—myself included—are unable to express their genuinely profound thoughts in a facile manner in front of a microphone or a camera. Perhaps Peterson was much better in print than he was on video or on the Internet; after all, he was the bestselling author on the planet at the time.

So, I read his bestseller, 12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos. I read his would-be magnum opus, Maps of Meaning: The Architecture of Belief. I even read his contribution to the UN Secretary General’s High Level Panel on Sustainable Development of which he was a member, Resilient People, Resilient Planet: A future worth choosing.

And this book is the result of what I learned from reading the three published works of Jordan Peterson.

A word of warning. This book is necessarily more than a little esoteric. It references a number of works with which you may be unfamiliar, and draws obscure connections you may not immediately recognize or that you may be initially reluctant to acknowledge, especially if you are a Jordan Peterson fan.

But you can be sure of one thing. Unlike Jordan Peterson, I am not attempting to deceive, confuse, dazzle, or baffle you. Unlike Jordan Peterson, I am not attempting to change your perspective or your philosophy. Unlike Jordan Peterson, the logic I present is clear and straightforward. And unlike Jordan Peterson, I do not owe my allegiance to anything but the objective truth, as that concept has been defined in the dictionary and understood by Man since the beginning of time.

You need not take my word for any of this. Everything I am writing here is based on material evidence that you can obtain, examine, and analyze for yourself. So clear your mind, set aside your assumptions and preconceptions, and prepare yourself for a journey into the mind of one of the most shameless intellectual charlatans in the history of Man.

It is no surprise that it would take a book about12 Rules for Life to move it out of its number 1 position at Amazon. What do you think of Jordanetics: A Journey into the Mind of Humanity's Greatest Thinker?

Great introduction. I hope this book makes a big impact fighting Peterson's evil intentions and ideas.

Selfishly I would have preferred being reading A sea os skulls this Winter, but this is much more important. Vox is one of the few people not only seeking Truth in the intelectual arena, but the most sharp choosing what to focus on and who to fight against. I would say he is inspired by the Holy Spirit.

I will continue supporting Castalia and Vox within my modest economic capabilities.

Slightly disappointed, it appears the "You think you're the burning bush" comment didn't make the book, but I only read thru Ch 3 last night. Can't wait to see more of the lies and complete fabrications as you document them.

I am watching the darkstream from last night, and an idea struck me. After having read Dr. Hallpike's takedown of Chomsky in Ship of Fools, I remember the bit about how more limited languages have to lean more heavily on shared context to transfer meaning.

I theorize at least part of why Peterson's fans do not get the same results from his bafflegarble is because it means nothing by itself. Since they are assuming incorrectly that he is a good man who'd never be out to trick them, they start searching their context for meaning. Each one has a unique set of experiences that make up their context, resulting in wildly different answers for what Peterson must mean.

I'm excited to read Jordanetics over Thanksgiving and see if this idea is anywhere close. Reading TIA was a pleasure of clear logic and I expect the same from this new work.

Yeah, I didn't think he was anything more than a fame whore in the Glenn Beck/Ben Shapiro mold when I started, but the deeper I went into the 12 Rules, the more spiritually subversive they obviously were. That's why I call it the 12-Rule Path. He's definitely more in the Crowley/Hubbard vein, there is no question that he sees himself as a post-Christian messiah or that he is out to save the world with his new religion.

"I theorize at least part of why Peterson's fans do not get the same results from his bafflegarble is because it means nothing by itself. Since they are assuming incorrectly that he is a good man who'd never be out to trick them, they start searching their context for meaning. Each one has a unique set of experiences that make up their context, resulting in wildly different answers for what Peterson must mean."

This is the point of the bafflegarble - to rarely say anything resembling a positive assertion in the factual realm (he's quite happy to make such assertions in the moral and political realms, note) but to leave the interpretation of the bafflegarble to the individual. When he does make positive assertions they are so surrounded by qualifiers and sub-clauses and asides and logical cul-de-sacs and "thoughtful pauses" that, as Vox notes, most people by the end have no idea what he actually said, let alone what he intended.

Right, I'm thinking more of why the bafflegarble results in different answers from people about what was said. When I read it, bafflegarble just sounds like craziness. Dr. Hallpike's point about shared context doing heavier lifting for more limited languages shows a difference I was not aware of previously. My context is not his followers context, and we pull different answers out of the word salad he passes around.

Got Jordanetics. It wasn't lost on me the word play of Jordanetics/dianetics. How anyone, even a twisted L.Ron could have the hubris and risk the displeasure of God is almost beyond belief. The legend goes, I remember, that L.Ron made a bet with someone that he could 'found' a religion. Thus, dianetics. I read the primary book once. Would not surprise to find JP a secret member of dianetics. I suspect Vox new book may just snarl his tape loop to no end. No wonder so many shallow people, Hollywood, anyone, would latch on. The Lord may have the infinite mercy to forgive, but, not much me.Looking to the read; with anticipation.

"The idea that there is a sinister aspect underlying the bullsh!t artistry of Judeo Peterson intrigues me."

A lot of con artists speak vaguely and non-sensically AS PART OF THE CON. Think of any of Obama's much-praised (by the left) speeches. They don't even have as much depth and meaning as so man cliche's strung together. The majority of what he said in those various speeches is nothing but empty fluff, completely devoid of any actual meaning -- but which, when spoken, induce the listener to believe that Obama is addressing the listener's most important issues.

Now, such constructs CAN be useful. Learn a bit about "blind therapy" as used by hypnotherapists. By addressing the client's problem in abstract language, the hypnotherapist can discuss things which the client finds so unsettling that they won't even admit to having -- not to the hypnotherapist or anybody else. In such a situation, the LESS the hypnotherapist knows about the problem, the better the results, because it's literally ALL about the client working it all out inside his own head.

However, for a politician to use such language is, frankly, pure, deceitful fraud, and nothing else.

Instapundit put up a link to the book. The JP fanbois are out in force. One of them even attempted to excuse JP working with the UN, “lots of writers edit stuff they don’t agree with”. The mental gymnastics these cucks go through is just pathetic

One of them even attempted to excuse JP working with the UN, “lots of writers edit stuff they don’t agree with”

As I have repeatedly mentioned, Peterson cultists don't even read what he writes. Peterson himself claims that he provided the paper with its narrative. That's what newspaper editors who are in charge do, not book editors who don't put their name on the book.

Milo's foreword is amazing. It was up there with his best content from GamerGate to Trump's election. I also noticed that the bite was back in his shredding of Kassy Dillon a few months ago. He should make a proper comeback at some point. Not like the drunken, half-assed one he made late last year. A proper one. Nobody's been able to really fill the void he left behind on the Right.

Thanks for writing this book. I frequently get people commenting on my YouTube videos saying that they would love to see me talk with Jordan Peterson and that we would have "interesting conversations." I wonder if I should now feel a bit insulted by that. I spent some time awhile back watching his content, and I think I had the same reaction as Milo - The words didn't seem to mean anything. I tried reading 12 rules, and thought it was (like most "self-help" books) a bunch of flim-flam woo woo dressed up as practical advice or philosophy. When I saw some of his lectures on the bible, I knew I could not be a disciple. I've never seen somebody try so hard to avoid theology, faith, or the simple acknowledgement that God exists while spending so much time talking about the Bible.So far, the book is great. Thorough as always, and an eye-opener for explaining what I felt but couldn't quite get to the razor of.

I watched the interview of Canada's ex-Prime Minister Stephen Harper's book interview on Shapiro's channel because it got pushed into my youtube feed today, not that I subscribe. The comments section is excessive fawning over Harper without any memory of what was not of the right during his time in power as a Conservative, mostly because Trudeau is so obscene and they have no memory of the actual past, nor details.

So I appreciate the effort, strategy and attention to detail that is necessary to dismantle a leftist anti-Christian figure as is Peterson. I am not saying Harper is bad in the same way. I just mean I appreciate the ability to know where to insert the wedge and hit it with the sledge hammer to break into the foundation of a person like Peterson and also not get tripped up in an argument error or factual error.

As a midwit, I am always interested in distilling concepts into something I can understand. From reading Milo's foreword, and everything Vox has written about JBP, I would have to describe JBP as thus:

Peterson's MO is making seemingly profound but vague open ended statements that he intends for you to complete to your satisfaction.

I'm four chapters in and the book is pretty cathartic. I've been waiting a long time for a thorough take down of this guy. I knew Peterson was an intellectual fraud almost immediately after discovering him but I thought his impact would still be more good than bad simply because he challenged the left. Looking back that was an embarrassing mistake to make but it's a good lesson not to ignore warning signs just because you think someone might be useful.

Vox, now that you are the author of a best-selling spiritual self-help book, I expect you'll be inundated with questions such as "what pearls of wisdom do you most commonly impart to your followers?" and "what was your most inspirational moment while writing Jordanetics?"

David Stewart wrote:Thanks for writing this book. I frequently get people commenting on my YouTube videos saying that they would love to see me talk with Jordan Peterson and that we would have "interesting conversations." I wonder if I should now feel a bit insulted by that. I spent some time awhile back watching his content, and I think I had the same reaction as Milo - The words didn't seem to mean anything. I tried reading 12 rules, and thought it was (like most "self-help" books) a bunch of flim-flam woo woo dressed up as practical advice or philosophy. When I saw some of his lectures on the bible, I knew I could not be a disciple. I've never seen somebody try so hard to avoid theology, faith, or the simple acknowledgement that God exists while spending so much time talking about the Bible.Are you this David Stewart? If so, I've enjoyed a lot of your videos that I've seen.

Normally I can find a non-IP-monopoly way to get hold of anything I want to read: for this I'm going to pay sticker price. So I'll (sadly) give some money to Bezos in order to (gladly) give you whatever is left over of the purchase price.

Does AMZN prevent you from offering an alternative distribution mechanism?

I'll consider going back in time and paying for your other books too ("SJWs always double down"; "SJWs always lie") - but I would prefer to remunerate the author, not the author and some shitbag ticket-clipper who interposes themselves.

Peace (just kidding).

Post a Comment

Rules of the blogPlease do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.